Better late than never I guess...

Quote:

The Khronos™ Group announced today it has released the OpenGL® 3.0 specification with strong industry support to bring significant new functionality to the open, cross-platform standard for 3D graphics acceleration.

http://www.khronos.org/news/press/relea ... ations_of/

I was reading that yesterday and one of the articles I came across indicated that a large number of developers in OpenGL were really upset by it. I'm not a programmer so I have to ask, what was wrong with the release?

Upset? Enraged would be more fitting for some of them.

My understanding:

1. The 3.0 spec did not include everything that had been promised...it's still not possible to do everything that DX10 can without resorting to extensions (which ATI refuses to support)
2. The 3.0 spec did not exclude everything that had been promised.

They were supposed to clean up the spec and remove old 'crap' to make driver development easier (-> better drivers)
3. They are a year late

Too little too late is never a good thing.

I'm starting to grow a severe dislike for ATI/AMD.

no reason to be upset with them. extensions mean things aren't standardized. ATI/AMD wants everything to be in the spec so there's no "we support feature X, the competition doesn't!".

Well in order to avoid that you actually support features. Oh well, what can you expect from a driver development team that causes hardware malfunction errors. YAY, I am SO extremely happy for my Mobility Radeon 1800 :lol:

Does anyone know if there are gfx cards now available that support ogl 3.0? Or are all just ogl 2.1?

It's going to take a driver update, rather than new hardware. OGL3 is just the same old stuff as before except shuffled around (some extensions became core, etc.).

Carmack spoke about OpenGL at his keynote. it wasn't very positive.

Nvidia has released a beta 3.0 driver.

http://developer.nvidia.com/object/opengl_3_driver.html

I'm kind of supportive of ATIs policy here in relation to the extensions. Adding loads of 'ad-hoc' extensions is not a good way of improving OpenGL. (Still I suspect that ATI has other reasons also for their reluctance to support extensions).

edit: Added link to driver

Speaking *as* a graphics programmer here, I can confirm the outrage was over the gross overstatement of the changes made since v2. OpenGL was supposed to go fully object-oriented and add craploads of new DX10-era functionality alongside an API rewrite. Hell, you can think of it as the DX10 of OpenGL. What we got was a handful of new features that were being mulled around a while back, such as instancing. All really old-school stuff.

For all the consumer bitching about it, most if not all the academic and development sectors have a very positive opinion of Microsoft's revision to DX and I think the OGL nuts wanted a piece of the pie. [sidenote]Give it (DX10) time, people, the performance is there. We just need some research done into developing algorithms capable of taking full advantage of the new design.[/sidenote]

I think it's also interesting to point out that ATi did a lot of the design for DX10 along with Microsoft. Wonder if that's related to their OGL stance.

TRSGM wrote:

I think it's also interesting to point out that ATi did a lot of the design for DX10 along with Microsoft. Wonder if that's related to their OGL stance.

It is. There's a few brave souls inside ATI that care about OGL but if it was up to the "man", even their professional line of cards would have moved to DX yesterday.

As a developer I can't blame them: supporting two competing standards for the same thing is redundant work, especially once D3D came of age with DX9. OGL just carries a lot of baggage, both technically and logistically. In ATI's dream world, supporting only D3D would mean no more redundancy, and no more linux/Mac 3D acceleration.

(though, ATI has for some time moved its "2D desktop rendering" to its full 3D renderer - which leads to a simplified driver but worse thermal chip performance)

I'd say more interesting then ATI working with MS (it's stupid not to: why NOT work with groups developing a standard so you can support it better?), why didn't Nvidia work hard with the OGL group to make OGL 3 BETTER then DX10.

Well, ATI has released i think since this year thousands of pages of documentation of their drivers to the open source free software community so that they can write free open drivers for their cards. Theyre quickly catching up to nvidia in terms of support for 3d and 2d gfx on the linux side of things. But yes, i think i read somewhere that the reason why ogl 3.0 was such a dissapointment, is because of the protests of the CAD industry, which wanted to keep their old sluggish crapcodes because it would have meant lots of money and resources invested in rewriting everything to the new ogl. And since apparently CAD is so important to khronos group, more so that pushing forward and crushing direct3d or catering to game developers, they basically released ogl 2.2.

Then branch it or something- if CAD wants a stable API then let them use legacy OGL, and let new things happen for gaming- or maybe spawn a competing CAD product from companies willing to invest in innovation.

Better late than never I guess...

Quote:

The Khronos™ Group announced today it has released the OpenGL® 3.0 specification with strong industry support to bring significant new functionality to the open, cross-platform standard for 3D graphics acceleration.

http://www.khronos.org/news/press/relea ... ations_of/

I was reading that yesterday and one of the articles I came across indicated that a large number of developers in OpenGL were really upset by it. I'm not a programmer so I have to ask, what was wrong with the release?

Upset? Enraged would be more fitting for some of them.

My understanding:

1. The 3.0 spec did not include everything that had been promised...it's still not possible to do everything that DX10 can without resorting to extensions (which ATI refuses to support)
2. The 3.0 spec did not exclude everything that had been promised.

They were supposed to clean up the spec and remove old 'crap' to make driver development easier (-> better drivers)
3. They are a year late

Too little too late is never a good thing.

I'm starting to grow a severe dislike for ATI/AMD.

no reason to be upset with them. extensions mean things aren't standardized. ATI/AMD wants everything to be in the spec so there's no "we support feature X, the competition doesn't!".

Well in order to avoid that you actually support features. Oh well, what can you expect from a driver development team that causes hardware malfunction errors. YAY, I am SO extremely happy for my Mobility Radeon 1800 :lol:

Does anyone know if there are gfx cards now available that support ogl 3.0? Or are all just ogl 2.1?

It's going to take a driver update, rather than new hardware. OGL3 is just the same old stuff as before except shuffled around (some extensions became core, etc.).

Carmack spoke about OpenGL at his keynote. it wasn't very positive.

Nvidia has released a beta 3.0 driver.

http://developer.nvidia.com/object/opengl_3_driver.html

I'm kind of supportive of ATIs policy here in relation to the extensions. Adding loads of 'ad-hoc' extensions is not a good way of improving OpenGL. (Still I suspect that ATI has other reasons also for their reluctance to support extensions).

edit: Added link to driver

Speaking *as* a graphics programmer here, I can confirm the outrage was over the gross overstatement of the changes made since v2. OpenGL was supposed to go fully object-oriented and add craploads of new DX10-era functionality alongside an API rewrite. Hell, you can think of it as the DX10 of OpenGL. What we got was a handful of new features that were being mulled around a while back, such as instancing. All really old-school stuff.

For all the consumer bitching about it, most if not all the academic and development sectors have a very positive opinion of Microsoft's revision to DX and I think the OGL nuts wanted a piece of the pie. [sidenote]Give it (DX10) time, people, the performance is there. We just need some research done into developing algorithms capable of taking full advantage of the new design.[/sidenote]

I think it's also interesting to point out that ATi did a lot of the design for DX10 along with Microsoft. Wonder if that's related to their OGL stance.

TRSGM wrote:

I think it's also interesting to point out that ATi did a lot of the design for DX10 along with Microsoft. Wonder if that's related to their OGL stance.

It is. There's a few brave souls inside ATI that care about OGL but if it was up to the "man", even their professional line of cards would have moved to DX yesterday.

As a developer I can't blame them: supporting two competing standards for the same thing is redundant work, especially once D3D came of age with DX9. OGL just carries a lot of baggage, both technically and logistically. In ATI's dream world, supporting only D3D would mean no more redundancy, and no more linux/Mac 3D acceleration.

(though, ATI has for some time moved its "2D desktop rendering" to its full 3D renderer - which leads to a simplified driver but worse thermal chip performance)

I'd say more interesting then ATI working with MS (it's stupid not to: why NOT work with groups developing a standard so you can support it better?), why didn't Nvidia work hard with the OGL group to make OGL 3 BETTER then DX10.

Well, ATI has released i think since this year thousands of pages of documentation of their drivers to the open source free software community so that they can write free open drivers for their cards. Theyre quickly catching up to nvidia in terms of support for 3d and 2d gfx on the linux side of things. But yes, i think i read somewhere that the reason why ogl 3.0 was such a dissapointment, is because of the protests of the CAD industry, which wanted to keep their old sluggish crapcodes because it would have meant lots of money and resources invested in rewriting everything to the new ogl. And since apparently CAD is so important to khronos group, more so that pushing forward and crushing direct3d or catering to game developers, they basically released ogl 2.2.

Then branch it or something- if CAD wants a stable API then let them use legacy OGL, and let new things happen for gaming- or maybe spawn a competing CAD product from companies willing to invest in innovation.

Better late than never I guess...

Quote:

The Khronos™ Group announced today it has released the OpenGL® 3.0 specification with strong industry support to bring significant new functionality to the open, cross-platform standard for 3D graphics acceleration.

http://www.khronos.org/news/press/relea ... ations_of/

I was reading that yesterday and one of the articles I came across indicated that a large number of developers in OpenGL were really upset by it. I'm not a programmer so I have to ask, what was wrong with the release?

Upset? Enraged would be more fitting for some of them.

My understanding:

1. The 3.0 spec did not include everything that had been promised...it's still not possible to do everything that DX10 can without resorting to extensions (which ATI refuses to support)
2. The 3.0 spec did not exclude everything that had been promised.

They were supposed to clean up the spec and remove old 'crap' to make driver development easier (-> better drivers)
3. They are a year late

Too little too late is never a good thing.

I'm starting to grow a severe dislike for ATI/AMD.

no reason to be upset with them. extensions mean things aren't standardized. ATI/AMD wants everything to be in the spec so there's no "we support feature X, the competition doesn't!".

Well in order to avoid that you actually support features. Oh well, what can you expect from a driver development team that causes hardware malfunction errors. YAY, I am SO extremely happy for my Mobility Radeon 1800 :lol:

Does anyone know if there are gfx cards now available that support ogl 3.0? Or are all just ogl 2.1?

It's going to take a driver update, rather than new hardware. OGL3 is just the same old stuff as before except shuffled around (some extensions became core, etc.).

Carmack spoke about OpenGL at his keynote. it wasn't very positive.

Nvidia has released a beta 3.0 driver.

http://developer.nvidia.com/object/opengl_3_driver.html

I'm kind of supportive of ATIs policy here in relation to the extensions. Adding loads of 'ad-hoc' extensions is not a good way of improving OpenGL. (Still I suspect that ATI has other reasons also for their reluctance to support extensions).

edit: Added link to driver

Speaking *as* a graphics programmer here, I can confirm the outrage was over the gross overstatement of the changes made since v2. OpenGL was supposed to go fully object-oriented and add craploads of new DX10-era functionality alongside an API rewrite. Hell, you can think of it as the DX10 of OpenGL. What we got was a handful of new features that were being mulled around a while back, such as instancing. All really old-school stuff.

For all the consumer bitching about it, most if not all the academic and development sectors have a very positive opinion of Microsoft's revision to DX and I think the OGL nuts wanted a piece of the pie. [sidenote]Give it (DX10) time, people, the performance is there. We just need some research done into developing algorithms capable of taking full advantage of the new design.[/sidenote]

I think it's also interesting to point out that ATi did a lot of the design for DX10 along with Microsoft. Wonder if that's related to their OGL stance.

TRSGM wrote:

I think it's also interesting to point out that ATi did a lot of the design for DX10 along with Microsoft. Wonder if that's related to their OGL stance.

It is. There's a few brave souls inside ATI that care about OGL but if it was up to the "man", even their professional line of cards would have moved to DX yesterday.

As a developer I can't blame them: supporting two competing standards for the same thing is redundant work, especially once D3D came of age with DX9. OGL just carries a lot of baggage, both technically and logistically. In ATI's dream world, supporting only D3D would mean no more redundancy, and no more linux/Mac 3D acceleration.

(though, ATI has for some time moved its "2D desktop rendering" to its full 3D renderer - which leads to a simplified driver but worse thermal chip performance)

I'd say more interesting then ATI working with MS (it's stupid not to: why NOT work with groups developing a standard so you can support it better?), why didn't Nvidia work hard with the OGL group to make OGL 3 BETTER then DX10.

Well, ATI has released i think since this year thousands of pages of documentation of their drivers to the open source free software community so that they can write free open drivers for their cards. Theyre quickly catching up to nvidia in terms of support for 3d and 2d gfx on the linux side of things. But yes, i think i read somewhere that the reason why ogl 3.0 was such a dissapointment, is because of the protests of the CAD industry, which wanted to keep their old sluggish crapcodes because it would have meant lots of money and resources invested in rewriting everything to the new ogl. And since apparently CAD is so important to khronos group, more so that pushing forward and crushing direct3d or catering to game developers, they basically released ogl 2.2.

Then branch it or something- if CAD wants a stable API then let them use legacy OGL, and let new things happen for gaming- or maybe spawn a competing CAD product from companies willing to invest in innovation.

Better late than never I guess...

Quote:

The Khronos™ Group announced today it has released the OpenGL® 3.0 specification with strong industry support to bring significant new functionality to the open, cross-platform standard for 3D graphics acceleration.

http://www.khronos.org/news/press/relea ... ations_of/

I was reading that yesterday and one of the articles I came across indicated that a large number of developers in OpenGL were really upset by it. I'm not a programmer so I have to ask, what was wrong with the release?

Upset? Enraged would be more fitting for some of them.

My understanding:

1. The 3.0 spec did not include everything that had been promised...it's still not possible to do everything that DX10 can without resorting to extensions (which ATI refuses to support)
2. The 3.0 spec did not exclude everything that had been promised.

They were supposed to clean up the spec and remove old 'crap' to make driver development easier (-> better drivers)
3. They are a year late

Too little too late is never a good thing.

I'm starting to grow a severe dislike for ATI/AMD.

no reason to be upset with them. extensions mean things aren't standardized. ATI/AMD wants everything to be in the spec so there's no "we support feature X, the competition doesn't!".

Well in order to avoid that you actually support features. Oh well, what can you expect from a driver development team that causes hardware malfunction errors. YAY, I am SO extremely happy for my Mobility Radeon 1800 :lol:

Does anyone know if there are gfx cards now available that support ogl 3.0? Or are all just ogl 2.1?

It's going to take a driver update, rather than new hardware. OGL3 is just the same old stuff as before except shuffled around (some extensions became core, etc.).

Carmack spoke about OpenGL at his keynote. it wasn't very positive.

Nvidia has released a beta 3.0 driver.

http://developer.nvidia.com/object/opengl_3_driver.html

I'm kind of supportive of ATIs policy here in relation to the extensions. Adding loads of 'ad-hoc' extensions is not a good way of improving OpenGL. (Still I suspect that ATI has other reasons also for their reluctance to support extensions).

edit: Added link to driver

Speaking *as* a graphics programmer here, I can confirm the outrage was over the gross overstatement of the changes made since v2. OpenGL was supposed to go fully object-oriented and add craploads of new DX10-era functionality alongside an API rewrite. Hell, you can think of it as the DX10 of OpenGL. What we got was a handful of new features that were being mulled around a while back, such as instancing. All really old-school stuff.

For all the consumer bitching about it, most if not all the academic and development sectors have a very positive opinion of Microsoft's revision to DX and I think the OGL nuts wanted a piece of the pie. [sidenote]Give it (DX10) time, people, the performance is there. We just need some research done into developing algorithms capable of taking full advantage of the new design.[/sidenote]

I think it's also interesting to point out that ATi did a lot of the design for DX10 along with Microsoft. Wonder if that's related to their OGL stance.

TRSGM wrote:

I think it's also interesting to point out that ATi did a lot of the design for DX10 along with Microsoft. Wonder if that's related to their OGL stance.

It is. There's a few brave souls inside ATI that care about OGL but if it was up to the "man", even their professional line of cards would have moved to DX yesterday.

As a developer I can't blame them: supporting two competing standards for the same thing is redundant work, especially once D3D came of age with DX9. OGL just carries a lot of baggage, both technically and logistically. In ATI's dream world, supporting only D3D would mean no more redundancy, and no more linux/Mac 3D acceleration.

(though, ATI has for some time moved its "2D desktop rendering" to its full 3D renderer - which leads to a simplified driver but worse thermal chip performance)

I'd say more interesting then ATI working with MS (it's stupid not to: why NOT work with groups developing a standard so you can support it better?), why didn't Nvidia work hard with the OGL group to make OGL 3 BETTER then DX10.

Well, ATI has released i think since this year thousands of pages of documentation of their drivers to the open source free software community so that they can write free open drivers for their cards. Theyre quickly catching up to nvidia in terms of support for 3d and 2d gfx on the linux side of things. But yes, i think i read somewhere that the reason why ogl 3.0 was such a dissapointment, is because of the protests of the CAD industry, which wanted to keep their old sluggish crapcodes because it would have meant lots of money and resources invested in rewriting everything to the new ogl. And since apparently CAD is so important to khronos group, more so that pushing forward and crushing direct3d or catering to game developers, they basically released ogl 2.2.

Then branch it or something- if CAD wants a stable API then let them use legacy OGL, and let new things happen for gaming- or maybe spawn a competing CAD product from companies willing to invest in innovation.